campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia:Impartial Category Policy/Resolutions/SSMcat
Following procedure Vote to remove Category:Civil rights" from the Same-sex marriage article ' - Requested by Lou franklin, 10:57, 4 September 2006 *Motion seconded by ШΔLÐSΣИ 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Arguments for proposing the vote I propose to remove the Category:Civil rights from the articles Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage/Con and Same-sex marriage/Proposal. #The placement of said categories may be interpreted as an implicit endorsement of adopting same-sex marriage as a civil right -- an opinion contested by many. #The categories should be a means of finding articles and should not be a source of controversy. The debate on whether same-sex marriage is a civil right should take place in the article. Far too much effort has been wasted on debating categories. #The placement of the Category:Civil rights on the article Same-sex marriage was decided because there is a group of people believe it is/should become a civil right. This could be applied for more generally rejected topics, such as child molestation (a sufficient argument for placing the Category:Civil rights on an article about child molestion would be the existence of a group of people who believe it is/should become a civil right). This is clearly unacceptable. The division between what we consider acceptable in the Category:Civil rights and what we don't is arbitrary; liberals include same-sex marriage, conservatives do not. ::I disagree. If there are arguments in the article that civil rights should be amended for any purpose, the article belongs in the civil rights category whether I agree with it or not. If it appears that those arguments were made in bad faith, that can be dealt with in other ways, but as long as the arguments are there, the category should be as well. There's nothing ''arbitrary about it. --whosawhatsis? 00:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC) #Finally, I believe this discussion has created a division between liberals and conservatives on this page, and I believe a gesture of good faith should be made to the conservative minority, showing our will to achieve a balanced site. My goal is to show that partisans can cooperate in harmony and create more than an informative site: a united community. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 00:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion Lou & Waldsen, please present your arguments. Chadlupkes 14:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Clarification requested: Would this remove Category:Civil rights from Same-sex marriage '''and all subpages, or just from the main article? If you'll accept the amendment, I'd like to suggest that the Pro article maintain the category, as people who are on that side of the argument pretty much do believe that they are waging a civil rights battle. Chadlupkes 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :If it is removed from some subpages but not others, I think it needs to stay on the 'proposal' page as well as the 'pro' page. This page specifically discusses the rights involved and proposes changes to those rights such as making Civil Unions available. --whosawhatsis? 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::Oh, I think that's going to be another can of worms. To people who subscribe to the Con position, it's going to be difficult to get them to accept Civil rights as a cat on the proposal page, because they don't believe that the solution is by granting them those rights, which they don't think exist. Like I said, can of worms. I think having the cat on the Pro page in this example would be good enough, and probably enough of a compromise to pass everyone's judgment. Chadlupkes 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :::Could we all live with having Civil Rights on the Pro page only? How many people would disagree with that? Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 20:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I could live with that. We need both Lou and Waldsen to weigh in about the idea, then we'll bring the motion to a vote. Chadlupkes 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I would disagree with that. Civil unions, if granted, would be a civil right. The page proposes civil unions, so it belongs in the civil rights category. --whosawhatsis? 20:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Do we need to decide the categories page by page, or topic by topic? It sounds like page by page is the way we're moving. Chadlupkes 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) I answer to all: *I believe the category should not be removed from the Pro section. I believe it should be removed from the rest. All arguments for removing the category apply to the Proposals section. *I, personally, believe same-sex marriage is a right, be that civil, human, or any other. However, I support removing the category and I even seconded the motion. This is to show that we are willing to compromise. We all have our space to express our views, but I don't think the categories should cause these conflicts. I invite the community to vote for the removal as I did (of course, no hard feelings for those who don't). --ШΔLÐSΣИ 00:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :I'd love to find a compromise and stop fighting about this, but the Proposal section deals entirely with the legal rights regarding marriage, and as such, if anything, fits the civil rights category better than the Pro section. --whosawhatsis? 00:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Another Proposal I just had another idea that I'd like to get people's opinions on. We have at least two different articles about marriage rights (including SSM, which has subpages)... how about we create Category:Marriage rights as a subcategory of Category:Civil rights and put both Same-sex marriage, Campaign To Privatize Marriage, and any other applicable articles into that category. Under CatP, this would require removing Same-sex marriage from the civil rights category. Thoughts? --whosawhatsis? 03:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC) I've gone ahead and created the category and added those articles to it. As long as they remain in that category and it remains a subcategory of civil rights, I'm on board with removing the SSM and all subpages from Category:Civil rights, in compliance with CatP. --whosawhatsis? 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :I am not thrilled with this topic being categorized under any term that contains the word "marriage". Marriage means the union of one man and one woman, and that is not what the article is about. The best solution is to remove the category entirely. :Also, I am uncomfortable with "marriage rights" being a subcategory of "civil rights" because it still falsely conveys that homosexual "marriage" is a civil rights issue. :The best solution is to remove the category entirely. I would be willing to compromise and use the term "marriage laws" rather than "marriage rights", but we'd have to remove it from the parent category of "civil rights". :Things are worse than they were to begin with. Not only is same-sex "marriage" still miscategorized under "civil rights", but now it is also under "marriage rights". So now we have two offensive categories instead of one. Lou franklin 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ::If the category was "marriage laws" and not under civil rights, the article would still need to be under civil rights and nothing would be solved. As it is categorized now, Category:Civil rights should be removed, but due to the previous edit wars, I could not do this immediately. ::Although I think that "Marriage rights" is more accurate, if it will end this, I would be willing to agree to change the category to "Marriage laws" as a subcategory of civil rights. The civil rights category could then be removed. This removal would still require a consensus vote, of course, due to previous edit wars (in accordance with 3rr), but as long as it's in a subcategory of civil rights, I would vote for removal of that category (in accordance with CatP). --whosawhatsis? 18:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :::If the category was "marriage laws" and not under civil rights, the article would still need to be under civil rights :::Why? Lou franklin 02:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Because it's still a civil rights issue. The only reason to remove that category is because it's redundant because the article is in a subcategory of civil rights. --whosawhatsis? 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)